One obvious point I'm missing here, and that I've been missing from Janet discussion in general: why Janet and not Scheme?
Gauche for example implements the latest (and IMO greatest) R7RS, its standard library is huge and "batteries-included" including a wide array of RFCs to the point of rivaling Python, and has a package manager in the form of Akku. Chicken has a similar story. Racket is arguably more useful "out of the box", but its community seems so heavily focused on using it for PL research that it's harder to justify using it for day-to-day programming. And there's Clojure as well, which I know comparatively less about, but is well-loved by its users.
Heck, even Common Lisp has a lot going for it, but the Standard and the conventional Lisp dev tools are kind of chaotic and idiosyncratic enough that it's understandable if people don't want to use it.
To be clear, Janet seems like a great little language. But as someone with limited time and energy who is interested in using it, I want to know why I should spend the time learning it, compared to Scheme
Gauche for example implements the latest (and IMO greatest) R7RS, its standard library is huge and "batteries-included" including a wide array of RFCs to the point of rivaling Python, and has a package manager in the form of Akku. Chicken has a similar story. Racket is arguably more useful "out of the box", but its community seems so heavily focused on using it for PL research that it's harder to justify using it for day-to-day programming. And there's Clojure as well, which I know comparatively less about, but is well-loved by its users.
Heck, even Common Lisp has a lot going for it, but the Standard and the conventional Lisp dev tools are kind of chaotic and idiosyncratic enough that it's understandable if people don't want to use it.
To be clear, Janet seems like a great little language. But as someone with limited time and energy who is interested in using it, I want to know why I should spend the time learning it, compared to Scheme